Quote - This debate has also surfaced again on Live Journal as they've just changed their policy to allow the kind of art that got folks banned last May.

Quote:

**Our policy on Non-Photographic Images of Minors is being removed. What this means is that we will no longer be requiring the removal of this content, or suspending people who have posted it. We feel that with the introduction of the adult content flagging system, we do not need to take any further action on this type of material.

****We have also stated within the policy that non-graphic, non-sexualized nudity is not considered explicit adult content. This includes things such as an image of a mother breastfeeding their child, or a non-sexualized work of art such as the Statue of David. We have also extended this to our policy on default userpics; non-graphic, non-sexualized nudity is no longer considered a violation of our default userpic policy.

---

**In other words (I'm quoting again 'cuz this guy sums it up much better than me): Art involving fictional characters is never "child pornography" in the US, because it doesn't depict living children.

The second quote doesn't sum up the first at all. The first paragraphis saying, if it's not a photo, then it's ok - nothing about being fictional characters. I could make a painting of a real person, and it would be covered under this new ruling.

The second paragraph simply states that if an image is non-sexualised, then it's ok. That's all; nothing about real or fictitious here, either.

So quite how the ruling that non-sexualised or non-photographic images of people is accepatable became 'kiddie porn of fictional characters is allowed' is quite beyond me.

JonTheCelt